Month / August 2016

Donald Trump will land in Mexico City. He’s there for a summit meeting with Mexico’s President Pena Nieto.

Before Trump even woke up this morning, the Washington Post declared the future meeting a complete disaster that Trump will never recover from. The Post predicted a complete visual and verbal disaster even though there’s no historical evidence on which to base such a prediction.

The WaPo is probably projecting its wishes, not its beliefs. By doing so–by predicting Trump’s visit will be a complete and total disaster–WaPo has set the bar for success ridiculously low.

Trump probably predicted the press’s predictions. He knew Hillary and the press would try to convince the trip was a disaster even before the trip happened. They will then ignore the actual event, leaving stupid people with the impression that Trump failed.

Luckily, stupid people are less likely to vote. The people who vote will pay attention to both the WaPo prediction of utter disaster and to the actual summit meeting.

When Trump and Pena Nieto part later today, they will release a statement that goes something like this:

We thank each other for a fine, cordial visit.

We really like each other as people.

We were amazed at the number of common goals we share as leaders and for our nations.

We identified numerous problems that we can address together–problems that plague both nations and our relationship with each other. These problems have festered too long, and we vowed to work together to solve them. These include problems with border security, immigration, and crime.

We also identified numerous opportunities that, with better cooperation and fair deals, we can exploit together for the mutual benefit the American nations.

While we do not agree completely on every problem and solution, the common ground for cooperation provides a place to start building a stronger union between the United States and Mexico.

God save the queen (or something)

Or it could go completely different. We shall see. But chances are the Trump-Pena Nieto summit will end a lot like the Trump-Ryan summit.

Chances are, the meeting will be something better than a complete disaster, which will be a complete victory for Trump. Thanks largely to the high expectations for disaster created by Washington Post and Hillary Clinton.

Blacks want the same things whites want. Well, blacks want the same things non-elitist whites want. And it’s been quantified. By a Jew. Here’s what he found, as reported by Business Insider:

His report (featured below) found that black voters care most about lowering taxes in their community, having a strong leader, creating jobs, changing the tax code to help workers and small businesses, making college affordable, and improving the financial health of the US.

Folks, that’s what we all want. Those are totally color-blind goals.

There is no racial divide in America. Except the one invented by mainstream media.

This is what I’ve been telling you for years. People want to work, and they want to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

Here’s where it gets dicey: blacks have been conditioned to think Democrats want those same things. But Democrats hate those things. Democrats hate lower taxes, stronger leaders, more jobs, entrepreneurial tax codes, and affordable education. Democrats want the opposite of all those things.

I’m for Trump because Trump wants African-Americans to have better lives. Some say that makes me a racist. But that’s okay. I’ll accept the “racist” mantle if it means blacks will finally get good jobs and live without the fear of violence. If it’s racist to want blacks to live lives as good as mine, then call me racist.

No one really cares what you do or the consequences of your actions. They care about what you say.

That’s what we learned in school, right? That action is cheap but words are priceless. You probably memorized this nursery rhyme:

Verbs and nouns
Can break our crowns
But deeds can never hurt us.

There was another nursery rhyme with the same meter and opposite meaning. It was subversive. You should never, ever think of that rhyme again. Because we know now that words, not actions, matter above all else.

Don’t believe me? Silly child. Think about this.

Sexism

Donald Trump insults people who attack him. Some of the people who attack him are women, so Trump insults some women. That makes him sexist, right?

But that’s action. That’s a result. What matters is words, not actions.

His words hurt Rosie O’Donnell’s feelings, so he must be a sexist. Verbs and nouns can break our crows, but deeds can never hurt us.

Racism

Donald Trump insults people who attack him. Some of the people who attack him are not of European ancestry, so Trump insults people of color. That makes him a racist, right?

We all know that Donald Trump has one of the best records in business for his treatment of minorities. He turned a formerly “closed” country club in Florida into an “open” club that accepts blacks, Jews, and women as members. Decades ago. He almost got kicked out of Florida for letting the Jews in, remember?

But that’s action. That’s result. What matters is words, not actions. Actions don’t count in America, only words do.

His words hurt Judge Curiel’s feelings, so he must be a racist. Even though Mexico is a country, not a race . . . yeah, but still. Verbs and nouns can break our crowns, but deeds can never hurt us.

Grow Up

If you live your life by nursery rhymes, you probably need psychiatric help.

If you believe words are more important than deeds, you’re probably beyond treatment.

Donald Trump built a successful company that employs 34,000 people. His company has more women executives than men executives. His daughter, not his sons, runs the company now. And a huge percentage of those 34,000 employees are Hispanic or other immigrants.

Trump’s actions improve lives.

Once in a while, Trump’s words hurt the feelings of very, very sensitive people. Very touchy people, like Holden Caulfield’s parents. (Touchy as hell.)

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton sold out America to Russia for cash. That’s action. No one cares about that action. Because, in America today, words speak louder than action.

Put your mouth where my money is. (I carry a front-pocket wallet.)

Clinton also called you a racist if you don’t vote for her in Novmeber. Words speak louder than actions.

If you enjoy this post, you have to thank your fellow reader, Tony, for reading the whole TIME article from yesterday’s post. He pointed out more similarities between 1980 and 2016. Especially Reagan’s gaffes and Democrats’ complacency.

First, the gaffes.

You hear about Trump stepping on his own applause lines. He announced Steve Bannon and Kellyanne Conway the day after the best speech of his life (until then). He wondered aloud (via Twitter) what Mr. Kahn’s wife was thinking and why she was so quiet. Et Cetera.

Those Trump gaffes fueled his enemies and hurt his poll numbers. But he recovered remarkably, didn’t he? His speeches are humble without groveling. His message is clear and connecting. He seems to have hit his stride just in time.

You might think Reagan, being an actor and governor of our largest state, sailed through the post-convention period without a ripple. But that’s not what happened.

Despite his speaking skills, Reagan has, of course, been too busy trying to explain away a series of bloopers either to maintain a consistent attack on Carter’s performance or to attract attention to the Republican policies that he has proposed.

Not only has Reagan fallen into uttering such needlessly provocative comments as advocating “official” governmental contacts with Taiwan, praising the Viet Nam War as “a noble cause,” suggesting that Darwinism be countered by teaching the biblical story of creation as well, and terming the current recession “a severe depression,” but his own advisers have jumped readily into the ensuing fray, like a Greek chorus of mourners, to concede in most cases that Reagan was wrong. Says Dean Burch, the senior adviser to Bush: “There is a possibility that the caricature of Reagan will become a reality. We have to guard against it.”

While some of the impulsive Reaganisms may have pleased his more conservative supporters, they feed the doubts about his judgment that bother other voters. Thus the tense staff is trying to set up “fail-safe” systems to protect Reagan against Reagan. His aides are more carefully reviewing every speech text for pitfalls and insisting that the Governor just stick with the typed pages.

You could literally search and replace “Reagan” with “Trump” and print that paragraph tomorrow, could you not? Seriously, it’s like Groundhog Day. From “blowing up the world” to “stick with the typed pages,” everything they say about Trump they previously said about Reagan.

As I re-read the TIME piece from 1980, it dawned on me that Reagan was not quite as perfect a candidate as I remembered. Which is good news. That means Trump is not nearly as flawed as we are told. For example, the MSM wants us to believe Trump’s campaign is hopelessly disorganized and chaotic. But so was Reagan’s in September 1980:

In addition, an outside heavyweight adviser—last week it was James Lynn, who headed Gerald Ford’s Office of Management and Budget—will ride shotgun on the campaign planes to help Reagan.The staff itself, however, remains a problem: it is still far too disorganized. Says an old Reagan friend: “Ron doesn’t know how to be tough with people. Sometimes he tolerates so-so performances.”

So far, so good, and then, once again, Reagan botched it. At the Michigan State Fair, he launched another attack on Carter and went too far. “Now, I’m happy to be here,” he said, “while he [Carter] is opening his campaign down in the city that gave birth to and is the parent body of the Ku Klux Klan.”

Thud. By linking the President with the Klan, Reagan not only outraged Carter’s supporters but offended no less than seven Southern Governors, who fired off wires protesting that Reagan had insulted the South. The President promptly jumped on the blunder: “I resent very deeply what Ronald Reagan said about the South and about Alabama and about Tuscumbia. Anybody who resorts to slurs and to innuendo against a whole region based on a false statement and a false premise is not doing the South or our nation a good service.” Indeed, Reagan had compounded his mistake by getting his facts wrong; Tuscumbia is merely the headquarters of a branch of the Klan. Reagan apologized by telephone to Alabama Governor Forrest (“Fob”) James, and once again his aides sheepishly tried to explain that their boss had not really meant what he said.

Thirty-six years later, we Reaganites tend to forget the times we had to explain or apologize for his comments. Really, they were innocuous. But the MSM of 1980 were just as viciously anti-Republican as they are today.

The thing to remember is this: if Reagan, the trigger-happy simpleton of 1980, could win, so can Trump in 2016.

In a moment we’ll look at what Democrats were saying in September 1980 and compare that to what Democrats (aka, CNN) are saying today. But first, let’s look at the swing states of 1980 and 2016. They’re remarkably similar.

From 1980:

Even if Carter should hold the Deep South, which is far from certain, Reagan will look for his victory margin in five targeted states: Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Texas and Florida. They have 121 electoral votes, and if Reagan can win just the largest three, he should wind up in the Oval Office. Thus nearly 40% of his currently scheduled campaign time (49 days of travel and 95 major appearances) will be devoted to these five states.

From 2016:

The ads are set to begin Friday in Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania, and run through August 29. The full extent of the advertising is still unclear, but as of Thursday afternoon, Trump was set to spend $1.3 million in Florida, $775,000 in North Carolina, $675,000 in Ohio and $790,000 in Pennsylvania. That does not include cable-TV advertising, which was not yet available.

Trump’s campaign told POLITICO earlier this week the GOP presidential nominee would begin advertising in five states: the four where it began placing Thursday morning, but also Virginia.

Tea Party for Trump will focus its initial work on Ohio, along with shoring up support in each founding member’s home state.

The big difference between 1980 and 2016 is, of course, the Deep South. In 1980, the south was iffy. Carter won big there in 1976, but Reagan polled well in the South. In September 1980, no one knew how the South would break. (It broke for Reagan and has remained solidly Republican ever since.)

Trump will dominate the Deep South in 2016. Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are in play, but Tea Party for Trump plans to be the difference in those battlegrounds.

And now we turn to the Democrats of 1980. Let’s just say they were confident. Again, from the TIME story:

As for the Carter staff, it has been astonished by its candidate’s catch-up in the polls. Chortled one aide last week: “That Reagan is doing our work for us.”

Campaign Manager Robert Strauss professes to be worried that Carter’s rally will generate overconfidence. Says he: “I don’t think Reagan necessarily is dumb. I don’t think he is going to get us into atomic warfare. I don’t think he is evil. He’s a very likable, attractive man.” But Strauss pinpoints Carter’s re-election strategy: to portray Reagan as “simplistic” and “not equipped to be President.”

“Not equipped to be President.” Where have we heard that recently?

We hear it every day from CNN, #NeverTrumpers, and President Obama. They’re just reading the Clinton campaign’s talking points memo. Like robots they call Trump “unfit.” Unfit is the new “not equipped.” They were wrong in 1980, and they’re wrong today.

Disenchanted, but not apathetic. Caring about issues, although much more concerned about character. Longing for a strong person to trust, but fearful of strength lacking sound judgment. Leery of weakness, but edgy about brashness. All too mindful of the disappointments of the past, but seeking hope in the future. Leaning toward one man, but often out of desperation and a sense of disdain for the others. Uncommitted. Unpredictable.

In 1980, people knew Carter was weak and bumbling, but they were afraid Reagan might blow up the world. In 2016, we know Clinton is crooked and sickly, and some people are afraid Trump might blow up the world. (In fact, almost every Republican candidate since Goldwater was supposed to blow up the world. That charge is getting pretty stale.)

The Numbers Are Remarkably Similar

When you look at the numbers from about the same period, you find incredible similarities between Clinton vs. Trump and Carter vs. Reagan. Since Rasmussen is the only major public poll looking at likely voters (as opposed to registered voters), we’ll use that.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online White House Watch survey of Likely U.S. Voters shows Clinton with 41% support to Trump’s 39%. Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson picks up nine percent (9%) of the vote, while Green Party nominee Jill Stein trails with three percent (3%). Three percent (3%) like some other candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided.

Carter and Reagan are deadlocked at 39% each, while Anderson’s support is 15%—precisely the level set by the League of Women Voters for him to qualify as a “viable” candidate and therefore earn a third spot in its crucial opening debate, set tentatively for Sept. 21 in Baltimore.

If you combined support for Green Party’s Stein with support for Libertarian Party’s Johnson and the 3 percent who favor “some other candidate,” third party candidates would be at . . . 15 percent. Amazing, right?

You probably know that a lot of people have negative feelings about both Clinton and Trump. The same was true in 1980:

Fully 55% say they are not “personally interested or excited about” any of the candidates. Only 11% report genuine enthusiasm for Reagan; a mere 9% feel that way about Carter and 6% about Anderson. In fact, much of the support given their preferred candidates is based on voters’ opposition to the others; the choices are essentially and votes. Thus 43% of the voters who prefer Reagan say they do so because they are “really voting against Carter.” Similarly, 34% of Carter’s supporters say their choice is based on opposition to Reagan, while a hefty 61% of Anderson’s followers admit that they are motivated by being “against Carter and Reagan.”

You might think there were a lot more undecided voters in 1980 than in 2016. But that’s not true, either. In early September 1980, just 1 percent considered themselves undecided.

Reagan Had a Disastrous August

If you think Reagan’s popularity only grew throughout the summer, you’ll want to think again. From TIME:

Though Carter and Reagan are even up in the race, the poll discloses areas of serious slippage for Reagan in important areas. For one thing, 59% of those preferring Carter claim they do so out of a positive feeling for him: they like his “experience,” and consider him “safer” in foreign affairs. Only 45% of Reagan’s followers feel a similar sense of confidence in their choice’s ability to get things done and to answer the need for a change. At the same time, Reagan’s rating on abilities regarded as important by voters has declined. In TIME’S last survey in May, 49% of those sampled agreed that Reagan was a leader “you can trust,” while 42% believe that now. Reagan was then considered “acceptable” as a President by 64%; the current figure is 54%. Voter confidence in Reagan’s ability to handle the economy has dropped from an impressive 75% to 66%, and his perceived competency in foreign affairs has slipped from 72% to 63%. The Californian still worries voters on a basic level: 54% of those surveyed feel that he often does not get his facts straight, and 48% fret that he may be “trigger happy.”

What Will Happen?

I’ve already predicted a Trump landslide. No need to change any of that. The more I hear Trump, the more hear Kemp. The more I research 1980, the more I see 2016.

Republicans are winning the race for new voter registrations in key states. According to the leftist Politico.com, “in Pennsylvania, Florida, Iowa and North Carolina, more new voters identify as Republicans.” Heavy Republican voter drives will help in northeastern Ohio, too, according to fellow Tea Party for Trumper Tom Zawistowski.

And one more amazing parallel to 1980 is playing out before our eyes. In 1980, Democrat voter enthusiasm collapsed after Carter defeated Ted Kennedy in the primaries. As TIME pointed out:

The survey pinpoints one group of voters still posing a considerable problem for Carter: the former followers of Senator Edward Kennedy. Despite the efforts at the Democratic National Convention to patch up the party’s deep rift and Kennedy’s later pledges of support for Carter, the Senator’s followers now split three ways on what they intend to do: 39% say they will back Carter; 28% prefer Anderson; a surprising 22% are disaffected that they say they will ump over the wall and vote for Reagan.

A June 14 Bloomberg Politics national poll of likely voters in November’s election found that barely half of those who favored Sanders — 55 percent — plan to vote for Clinton. Instead, 22 percent say they’ll vote for Trump, while 18 percent favor Libertarian Gary Johnson.

Amazing, isn’t? Twenty-two percent of Kennedy voters said they’d vote for Reagan over Carter. And the 22 percent of Sanders supporters say now they’ll vote for Trump. Amazing parallel.

On Sunday, August 28, you’ll take part in the St. Louis area Tea Party for Trump. NFL Hall of Famer Jackie Smith will sing, and we will have live music starting about 3:30 p.m. The rally will begin at 4:00. You’ll leave Festus with a renewed sense of hope for our country, regardless of how you feel about our candidate. Get your free tickets now.

You might want to read my latest book, Turning On Trump, before Sunday. Or you can buy a copy there.

On November 8, you’ll probably be amazed at how early the race gets called for President Trump.